Asiku v Victoria Equipment Limited (CIVIL SUIT No. 438 OF 1989)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court struck out an application to set aside ex-parte judgment on grounds that the notice of motion was materially and incurably defective. The notice failed to comply with Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that the grounds upon which the application is based must be outlined. The six numbered paragraphs in the notice were prayers for orders, not grounds for the application.
Outcome
Application struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules
Facts
The applicant/defendant filed a notice of motion dated 3 June 1991 seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment entered by the court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the notice of motion did not conform with Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules because it failed to outline the grounds upon which the application was based. The notice contained six numbered paragraphs which the applicant's counsel claimed were grounds, but which appeared on their face to be prayers for relief rather than grounds.
Issues
- Whether the notice of motion complied with the requirements of Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 3.6.91 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.